"I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE SOME ALLEGATIONS." —Deputy Public Defender Michael Clark, after reviewing 35 of Mark Fuhrman’s cases and finding no allegations of brutality, lying, manufacturing evidence or making ethnic slurs

Bear followed up on her idea of "facts" with a news story about the first steps in a probe of Fuhrman’s conduct as a Los Angeles police officer. A man from the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office looked at 35 cases from ’88-’94 and found no wrong-doing on the part of Mark Fuhrman. What fraction of one percent is that in Fuhrman’s 19-year career? Statistically, it is no more significant than if the man had picked five cases out of a hat and found no wrong-doing. Even the worst cop can’t operate at his worst a majority of the time. By its nature, misconduct would be an issue in only a narrow set of circumstances where it was an attractive alternative to obeying the law and the officer thought he could get away with it. Mark Fuhrman summed it up nicely when Laura Hart McKinny asked what he would do if a guy called him a motherfucker. He asked, "Are there any witnesses?"

In 1984, Fuhrman stopped a young black man named Jarvis Bowers for jaywalking, put him in a choke hold and threatened his life. This happened in front of a movie theater in a predominately white area with plenty of witnesses. It’s no surprise to me that the young man’s complaint—which cost Fuhrman a day’s pay—wasn’t included in the official LAPD report on the former officer. When you read the report, one thing that grabs you, if you know anything about data analysis, is the number of pertinent records that were disposed of—no one knows how many or which ones. That’s a sham, no different from subtracting an unknown number of votes from an election result before announcing a winner.

The next thing you see after reading enough reports to pick up the pattern, is the way in which paperwork, intelligence, intimidation and murder could work together to beat the system. A dumb rogue cop or an honest one who made a mistake, couldn’t do it. A smart one could if he was willing to go far enough to silence witnesses willing to testify against him in court and to cultivate "friends" for the specific purpose of testifying on his behalf.

No possible under-the-table dealings between Fuhrman and police lab personnel, or any structural flaws in lab security that Fuhrman could have taken advantage of, were ever investigated.

Subj: Re: Simpson case

Date: 97-03-03 20:05:39 EST

From: Lion

To: Pat, Ted

CC: All

Ted and Pat Crowe— First Crowe, thanks for the recognition! I am honored to be linked with Tiger and Bear! See what happens when you know your stuff, you get to travel in good company! As far as you being a "cheerleader" for Ted, you might want to reconsider based on the fact that his statements are a figment of his imagination! To say that Vannatter carried the victims’ "blood around for hours, if not days" and "no one knows how long" is ridiculous. That’s putting it mildly. This person obviously never watched the trials or read any transcripts, and for you to agree, I am inclined to think you haven’t either. And yet, you adamantly state that Simpson is innocent! How can you, if you don’t even know what the facts are?

As per transcript dated 11/10/96, Pg. 68/69, Vannatter picked up the samples of the victims’ blood at the coroner’s office on 6/15/96 at 8:45am as shown on coroner’s log, delivered the vials directly to SID at Piper Tech and handed them to the supervisor at the serology lab at 8:50am still sealed with initials intact, as shown by sign-in log at Piper Tech...THAT’S the sworn testimony, those are the facts as presented in the trial! Ted, maybe you should become more informed before you make such strong statements! It usually makes for a better debate —Lion

Subj: Re: Simpson case

Date: 97-03-03

From: Wolf

To: Pat, Ted (Theodore Bulger)

CC: All

I have been reading that Vannatter carried the blood around for hours if not days. Simpson’s blood was taken to Rockingham before Fung completed collecting the evidence. That is shown on the tape of his arrival at Rockingham and Andrea M. carrying the plastic bag out to the evidence van so he could not have had Simpson’s blood for days. The victims’ blood was picked up at the morgue and taken directly to the crime lab. It was signed out of the morgue and in at the crime lab within five minutes. Where are you coming up with this material? —Wolf

Subj: Re: Scratches Left Wrist

Date: 97-03-03 21:01:17 EST

From: Lion

To: Trille

CC: All

Let’s not forget the scratches on his left wrist! Trille, read my message to Crowe and Ted, you may become enlightened as to the facts surrounding the victims’ blood vials and how long Vannatter had them. Even better read the transcripts of 11/10/96 Pages 68 and 69 and see that Vannatter had the vials a grand total of 5 minutes... Accurate facts are very important in the decision process of guilt or innocence! Lion

What you have just read are the kinds of "facts" Hhhana, Crow, Trille, Peggy and I had to cope with since we first got on the Court TV boards—detailed, unequivocal, and bogus. I don’t happen to believe that Vannatter had any conscious involvement in Mark Fuhrman’s plans. However, the casual way in which he was allowed access to all of the blood evidence before testing, with no way of accounting for what he did with it for hours or days, shows how insecure the samples were. If Vannatter could do it above board with Garry Siglar, the criminalist who gave him the samples he wanted, why couldn’t Fuhrman do it under-the-table with Colin Yamauchi or another criminalist we don’t know about? What could he have gotten away with when nobody was looking because security procedures were so lax?

MR. HARMON: How do you get from Piper Tech serology [the main police lab] to Parker Center [the police station]? How did you get there on June 14th in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Via car.

MR. HARMON: And government car?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yeah. City car.

MR. HARMON: Will you describe how you transported the rack with the tubes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, the closed-off tubes are in the rack. And then one of those chem-wipes I described earlier, there's larger versions, I'll wrap that whole rack and everything up in the chem-wipe and transport it that way.

MR. HARMON: Why did you put the chem-wipe on?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Mostly because when you're walking along around the police station, it makes the detectives and people over there kind of nervous if they see little test-tube things. So I just want to make sure it's covered up.

MR. HARMON: Can you describe the facility or the rooms that you have over there? Are they normally staffed by anybody?

THE COURT: Over where?

MR. HARMON: At Parker Center.

MR. YAMAUCHI: At Parker Center, it would just be the DNA people.

MR. HARMON: And is there somebody whose assignment it is to be there all the time?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

The reason I mention Yamauchi is because of the August 4 timing of his blood spill. That was the same day all of the blood samples were brought together in one place. It was the same day blood was discovered on the socks. August 4 was the day "Andrea Mazzola’s" uninitialed coin envelopes, supposedly collected at Bundy, were packaged and shipped to Cellmark and California’s Department of Justice for DNA testing. Since the test results on the socks were leaked to the press through more than one source outside of the lab but within the LAPD before those tests were run, an LA cop had to have been involved somewhere.

Since the envelopes weren’t sealed until they were booked into evidence on June 16, it could have happened without Yamauchi’s knowledge earlier. Somehow, the words of Mark Fuhrman come to mind; "Fuck the rules," he said to Laura Hart McKinny, "We’ll make them up later." Yeah, but how do you make them stick without easy access to the lab?

The scratches on the left wrist, that Lion uses in her subject line, had to be from the autopsy report on Nicole, who had scratches on her left wrist. What that has to do with O.J., I don’t know. His only fresh cuts were on his middle finger. I must assume that it has to do with the blood evidence Ted was talking about, since that is what she was criticizing—evidence that included blood vials containing samples from O.J. (which Vannatter did carry around for hours on the 13th) and the victims’, which he got two days later.

According to Donald Freed and Raymond Briggs in Killing Time (page 235), "...LAPD did not record or log in the blood evidence from the crime scene until after June 16, 1994 —three days after the collection by police criminalists, and one day after Vannatter took the victims’ blood from the coroner’s office. Thus, between June 13 and June 16, Detective Vannatter had in his possession for some period of time, samples of all the principals’ blood."

That’s what we know about a detective who wasn’t trying to hide what he was doing with the blood in his possession. What about one who did want to hide his handling of the blood evidence, one closely associated, in one way or another, with all of it? What about Mark Fuhrman who manipulated blood evidence without even touching it? All he had to do was make timely suggestions that got the right people to see it his way—and they did. Who said the killer was bleeding from the left side? Mark Fuhrman. Who said the killer’s blood trail led from Bundy to Rockingham? Mark Fuhrman. Who found the 2-degree angle at which O.J.’s Bronco was parked so extreme as to warrant his inspection? Mark Fuhrman. Who discovered a spec of blood on the Bronco’s door which led to the illegal search of O.J.’s estate? Mark Fuhrman. Who gave everyone the false idea that blood drops straddling the Rockingham gate were going in instead of coming out? Mark Fuhrman. So, when we read about the killer’s blood trail, which eventually led Mark Fuhrman to the bloody glove on O.J.’s property, whose trail are we really following?

Subj: Fuhrman

Date: 97-03-05 18:44:25 EST

From: Cougar

To: Dable

CC: Tiger, Peggy, Matlock, Judi, Rabne, Pat, Chameleon, Bull, Puma, Lion, Bear, Hhhana, Trooper, Jaguar, Openminded, Judge, Leopard, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Panther, Mike

Laural [Dable]— My suggestion regarding the blood trail from the Bronco is that he had the small black bag in (right) hand and headed from the Bronco toward the house, depositing the bag on the edge of the lawn (where he insisted on picking it up himself when Allen Park and Kato later offered to get it) and then headed behind the garage up to the area of Kato’s room. There are several possibilities why there might be no blood-drops on the way to Kato’s air conditioner: hand in pocket, hand wrapped in handkerchief, sucking fingers (don’t you when you notice bleeding?) OR left hand carrying the bag, he could have headed toward house; THEN noticed limo, transferred bag to left hand and gone behind the garage intending to dispose of it and the glove, bumped air conditioner and dropped glove without realizing it, changed his mind about leaving the bag back there because of the noise he had made and dropped it on the lawn on his way into the house. Other suggestions? —Cougar

 

In Marcia Clark’s drawing of the Rockingham estate which, for unexplained reasons, is nearly identical to Mark Fuhrman’s where it counts, X marks the spot where Kato saw the bag behind the Bentley. You can tell by my drawing below it, which is as close to scale as I could make it, the "edge of lawn" in Mark and Marcia’s drawing is nowhere near where it’s located in the real world. Note where the Bentley would have to be parked relative to the south pathway if the bag were in the right place. This is an artist’s trick that takes advantage of known features (the curve of the drive nearest the garage where it meets the edge of the lawn) to create a powerful illusion.

Car designers use it to make their car proposals look sportier to upper management by drawing much bigger tires than the program calls for and slanting the windshield more than safety, cost, engineering or manufacturing considerations would ever allow. It’s called "cheating" because the distortion is calculated to plant a false idea of reality that will influence subsequent judgments in favor of the designer’s proposal. The more a designer cheats, the more likely it is that his design will be chosen.

Kato undoubtedly did the best he could with the impossible task he was asked to perform of marking where he saw the bag behind the Bentley and near the edge of the lawn. There was no place on that map he could draw where that was. Using Mark or Marcia’s drawings of the Rockingham estate, you can make Cougar’s scenario work. Without it, you can’t.

Subj: Open for Debate

Date: Thursday, March 06, 1997 10:52 AM

From: Hhhana

To: Trooper, Patricia Whetham

CC: Peggy

Hey buddies— I have become consumed mentally with the Fuhrman saga. I have done everything but pack up and go out west to talk to people with the answers. The answer is there somewhere. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but I really want your thoughts and input. Jasper, please help me if you think I’m off base anywhere [Editor’s note: We were all off base somewhere at different times and we all knew it. The only way to get back on and score a few points was to work with our team mates. It’s the only way we were able to score any points. It was the only way we could win] ...

We know MF and Nicole met in 1985 at Rockingham. After her separation she went to places he may have frequented. If they met again and they formed a relationship, what kind? Friends, lovers, drugs? Could be any of the three. We know police officers said MF was "Nicole’s cop" and we also know he mentioned to them something about breast augmentation surgery she supposedly had. (What you need to keep in mind is that MF holds women in low esteem, all women).

If they had a relationship, what would he have known on June 12, 1994?

1. The recital? Yes.
2. OJ was there? Yes.
3. He left alone? Yes.
4. Still alone at 9pm when he called to speak to Sydney? Yes.
5. Leaving for Chicago? Yes.

Why would he kill Nicole?

1. Jealousy? Yes?
2. Threat of exposure, drugs? Yes?
3. Her affair with M Allen? Yes?
4. Thinking about reconciliation with OJ? Yes?
5. Ron Goldman as lover (remember, MF says in his book he believes the meeting between Nicole and Ron was for affair)?

Why would he implicate OJ? HATE AND RACISM!

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, DO ANY OF YOU? Let’s face the fact that if MF was close to Nicole, he had access to her house, spent time there.

Evidence implicating OJ other than blood:

1. Knit cap / Has never made sense. OJ would have no use for this item. Had to be planted, might have come from inside the house.
2. Bundy glove / Again, doesn’t make sense. We know there was a receipt for 2 pairs purchased by NS. Was one for OJ and one for MF? (probably not, no use for in California?) Could one pair have been left by OJ at Nicole’s place? Maybe used when working around the place? MF know they were OJ’s? Also, maybe not OJ’s at all....
3. Rockingham glove / This is the most incriminating item. There is no logical reason for the glove to be there unless someone was on the Rockingham property to plant evidence. Had to leave early because of hitting the wall/air conditioner?

I know this is amateur stuff, just me thinking in print, but it really does fit. It would explain OJ’s sense of confusion. Even the shoes; they are not a common type of shoe. What if they really were OJ’s? At Nicole’s? Were the footprints made deliberately? could be....

We know Fuhrman knows how to clean up after a bloody scene. Remember the tape? He beat some men almost to death and he and his partner (could that have been Roberts) hosed each other off! Time to get ready for work. Does any of this make sense to any of you? —Paula

Subj: Re: Fuhrman

Date: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 8:49 PM

From: Trooper

To: Peggy

CC: Hhhana, Pat, Trille, Dable, Chameleon, Kim, Connie, Rabne, Ted

Hi Peggy,

I don’t have time to say all the things I would like to about your recent remarks on Mark Fuhrman and the unfair personal attacks you suffered because of it. I have always liked you a bunch (even when you weren’t talking to me) and know how hard you work at being respectful of other people’s feelings.

Naturally, I thought that what you said about my prime murder suspect was outstanding. I can understand how others might not agree. I can even understand why they would perform extraordinary mental contortions to avoid an honest consideration of what you said. I CANNOT understand why people you have defended at considerable risk to yourself, would turn on you the way they have. That’s crazy. I wasn’t going to talk to Tiger. But I think I have to. I’m worried about her. I don’t like her. I don’t trust her and I have no respect for her at all. I think she is an evil, arrogant, small-minded excuse for a human being—but I could be wrong. And I would not like to see anything bad happen to her.

I’m ashamed to admit that I got a big kick out of seeing her and Lion make absolute fools of themselves. Bear does it all the time without a clue that she is being laughed at when she thinks she is being clever (no hope there). But Lion and Tiger truly are very bright and when they screw up, they know it. Unfortunately, knowing it is not the same as admitting it. Do you think that’s what’s causing Tiger to treat you like Paula, Pat and me (as if that had ever been justified)? Whatever is causing it, I hope it stops. I’ll see what I can do.

Just wanted to let you know I care about you, I read everything you write with care and I admire your courage. Courage is a rare quality I always admire. Paula has it. Pat has it and Christine has it in spades. It’s a quality I saw in Wildcat when she went against Lion, Tiger and Bear. I saw it in you when you went against Jamal and me. Yes, I thought you were wrong both times. I thought that your kindness, your honesty and your trust in the basic goodness of people who have not committed overt acts of villainy, was used against you. I thought you were wrong about Jamal, wrong about Trille and wrong about me. But I never thought you were wrong to do what you honestly believed was right. —Your friend, Jasper

The fallout didn’t come right away but I was sure it would come in time. Meanwhile....

Subj: Re: Fuhrman

Date: 97-03-06 11:12:38 EST

From: Tiger

To: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)

CC: Matlock, Cougar, Rabne, Pat, Chameleon, Bull, Puma, Lion, Bear, Hhhana, Lynx, Trooper, Jaguar, Openminded, Judge, Leopard, Dable, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Panther, Mike

Peggy— Any discussion about the evidence that you do not accept makes sense. If you can challenge the evidence, and present your own evidence of any other killer, that, too, makes sense. Any discussion taken out of the air to see which way it flies, and which has no foundation in any evidence does not make sense. It may not be simple, but it is the only logical way to have a discussion. —Tiger

Subj: Fuhrman

Date: Thursday, March 06, 1997 5:34 PM

From: Peggy

To: Tiger

CC: Matlock, Cougar, Rabne, Pat, Chameleon, Bull M, Puma, Lion, Bear, Hhhana, Lynx, Trooper, Jaguar, Openminded, Judge, Leopard, Dable, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Bull R

Tiger— You’ve said it all. OJ did it, so there can be no discussion. No matter what is said, it doesn’t fit. —Peggy

Subj: Your letter to Tiger

Date: 97-03-05 16:21:01 EST

From: Pat

To: Peggy

CC: Hhhana, Trooper, Trille

Hi Peggy—I think your letter to Tiger was right on. ...I guess the only opinion that matters is hers. To hell with her. I like to discuss all aspects of the case. If we can’t discuss alternate scenarios, what is the use of a discussion? I will keep on looking and listening until I’m satisfied whodunit. I think being curious and looking into things is better than having a closed mind. —Pat (Crowe)

How hard could it be to appreciate the fact that evidence of guilt and evidence of a frame-up must have a common denominator—the appearance of guilt. The OJI’s didn’t ignore the evidence of guilt against O.J., we questioned it. We tried out different scenarios to account for it, to account for anomalies that the OJG’s ignored. We tried to find the source of rumors to see what weight if any we should give them. We tested our beliefs and changed them when the weight of knowledge and reason could no longer support them. That’s how I went from OJG to OJU to OJI. That’s where my MFG hypothesis came from and why Paula, Crowe and Peggy were trying it on the evidence to see how it fitted. How do you suppose our OJG’s interpreted this learning process?

Subj: Fuhrman

Date: 97-03-05 16:21:01 EST

From: Lion

To: Pat

CC: All

Pat (Crowe)— A few comments on your statements regarding Fuhrman. It is amazing to me how you can totally disregard hard evidence against Simpson, and consider rumors, suppositions, could be’s and what if’s in order to substantiate your accusation against Fuhrman! And then become offended if someone tells you your "opinion" is nothing more than storytelling! You even go so far as to try to create a motive for Fuhrman. Need to ask you one very important question, why didn’t Fuhrman know Simpson would be out of town! How did Fuhrman know that Simpson’s maid Gigi would not be at Rockingham that night and be able to give Simpson an alibi? Or Arnelle or Kato or any number of people!

How do you frame someone sucessfully without knowing whether or not he has an air-tight alibi? That alone puts a whole so big in your "opinion" you could drive a Mack truck through it.

Fuhrman has an alibi, he was at a benefit dinner with hundreds of witnesses [Editor’s note: Lion had only Fuhrman’s word that he was where he said he was, but even according to his testimony under the direct questioning of Marcia Clark in the criminal trial, he was not where Lion said he was]! But you will find something, probably a rumor, to not believe that. But you will believe Simpson who has no alibi at all!!! This boggles my mind! It is obvious that you absolutely refuse to believe anything even hard evidence against Simpson, and welcome with open arms anything against anyone else, regardless if it is fact or fantasy.

Re Simpson being "badly" pigeon-toed. Please tell me where I may find this document that says Simpson was "badly" pigeon-toed and the bloody shoeprints are straight? Do you have his exercise video? Doesn’t look "badly" pigeon-toed at all. Are you implying that Simpson’s army of legal eagles and Simpson himself missed this one! Why didn’t the Dream Team or Baker present this "evidence" in the trials? It would have certainly vindicated Simpson! Aren’t you just making assumptions or repeating something you heard that can’t be documented?

Pat, when you enter a debate without documented facts and a whole lot of speculation you run the risk of frustrating at lot of people. It turns into nothing more than "did not," "did so," "did not," "did so."... I rest my case... Just found something in the LA Times, dated Feb.22 that seems appropriate in light of your past comments: A new survey shows that 89 % of Americans say rudeness is a problem in our society. The other 11% said, "Get lost."... Sorry to end this message on this note. —Lion.

Subj: Sorry

Date: 97-03-05 16:21:01 EST

From: Hhhana

To: Pat

CC: All

Pat— After reading the above message I have to again point out the ineffective disclaimer hooked on the end of it. You can be sorry for something you did not do, or something you did not intend to do. Sorry is inappropriate for something done intentionally. Didn’t have to end on that note. If Lion was sorry to end there, she would not have ended there. Could have added any amount of dialogue. Puzzling to me why we see so much of this. Have a wonderful day. —Paula

Subj: Sorry to end on this note

Date: 97-03-05

From: Lion

To: Hhhana

CC: All

Hhhana— Hhhana are you going to make a career of critiquing me! Shall we start a new group with me as the subject! I thought we formed this group to discussion the Simpson case and others, more worthy of debate and discussion! If the only topic you can offer is about Tiger, Bear or myself then please remove my name from your list! You can comment all you want to the others, if they care to listen, but I would rather spend my time reading messages from other OJI’s like Margaret (Peggy) who at least addresses the issues in the Simpson case, or the JonBenet Ramsey case...Your messages are becoming a waste of time....and so are any "sorrys" that I might offer!

—Lion.

P.S. Noticed you didn’t send the message from Crowe that I was responding to! Hmmmm.... [Editor’s note: Lion did not notice that Hhhana rarely included messages from anyone she was responding to. Hmmmm....]

And what about that test balloon I launched with the inflammatory text—when taken out of context? What did Tiger do with it? Did she copy the entire letter and comment on that, or did she pick the parts she thought would make me sound like an unreasonable ogre?

Subj: Self-examination:

Date: 97-03-07 04:07:19 EST

From: Tiger

To: Openminded, Dable, Hhhana, Panther, Bull M, Peggy, Bull R, Matlock, Chameleon, Connie, Pat, Lion, Bear, Trooper

To the private OJI group that received this, let me broadcast this marvelous example of the biased, judgmental, prejudiced mind-set exhibited by some of you. Trooper wrote the following about me:

I don’t like her. I don’t trust her and I have no respect for her at all. I think she is an evil, arrogant, small-minded excuse for a human being—Now, had I used any similar terms when writing about any of you, I would have been vilified by every OJI on the e-mail list. You have accused me of treating you with disrespect—and I challenge you to show any evidence of that. Trooper doesn’t know me—but has—in his air of quasi-superiority, called me names that none of you are bothered by.

When Trille called me a KRAUT BITCH on a group mailing, and when she referred to me as "dickless Tiger," on the threads, believing I was a male, none of you uttered a sound. How sad for some of you that you need Trooper’s admiration. Personally, to be described in these terms by Lord Jasper is comforting. I would have to seriously examine my intellect, my attitude, and the size of my mind if I thought he included me in among the people he admires.

Frankly, I’m surprised at some (not all) of you. Your silence is an expression of agreement. So be it. I truly feel sorry for your collective inability to see through Trooper. But, just as you adore OJ Simpson, you have every right to worship at his feet as well. Good luck to you all. —Tiger

So, what do you think happened with my "inspired" plan to see what Tiger would do with the opportunity to play it straight or take "selected portions" out of context. What do you think the reaction was when she swallowed the bait and proved that what Trille and I said about her was true? Do you think anybody noticed? If you said, "of course," you’d be wrong. No one got it, not even Trille. They were all upset that my letter to Peggy got to Tiger and speculated on where the "leak" came from. I finally had to tell them that there was no leak. That I never sent anything to Chameleon that I didn’t want Tiger to read. If Tiger had been paying attention, she would have seen the pattern herself....Fortunately, all was not lost.